Europe to become a burqa free area in public?

yammycat

bluewolf wrote: »

Yes they do. You might not want to, but that doesn't mean nobody else wants to.

A few might but the vast majority don't

southsiderosie

yammycat wrote: »

because nobody wants to wear a paper bag just like nobody wants to wear a burqa.

If there were hundreds of people going around wearing paper bags on their head and it was known there was a culture of forcing people to wear paper bags but one or two people might actually have chosen to wear paper bags I'd ban the wearing of paper bags for the benefit of the vast majority of people effected.

You keep making this assumption even though there is no hard evidence of this in Western Europe, and in the study cited earlier in the thread, many of the women who engage in this practice are converts to Islam (i.e. they are willing participants, not forced by their fathers or husbands).

If we are going to ban religious practices that some husbands force their wives into, why stop at conservative Muslims? Why not Hasidic Jews, another minority religious group where secular culture is generally rejected, gender segregation is common practice, and women cover their hair and bodies? I am pretty sure that there are some Hasid women who feel constrained by their families, but I don't know this for a fact, and I wouldn't make the presumption that it is something that needs to be legislated.

yammycat

southsiderosie wrote: »

If we are going to ban religious practices that some husbands force their wives into, why stop at conservative Muslims? Why not Hasidic Jews

absolutely yes, I would have no problem with banning any and all religious practices that are forced upon people.

oscarBravo

yammycat wrote: »

If there were hundreds of people going around wearing paper bags on their head and it was known there was a culture of forcing people to wear paper bags but one or two people might actually have chosen to wear paper bags I'd ban the wearing of paper bags for the benefit of the vast majority of people effected.

Why is it necessary to discriminate against those who want to wear them in order to address the problem of those who are forced to wear them? Why do you feel the need to substitute state-sponsored oppression for cultural oppression? Why not focus your energies on preventing people from being forced to wear things they don't want to wear?

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

If wearing a burqa was about the weather and not religion, then there would be no reason to wear it in Northern Europe. Saying that it is not about Islam is ridiculous.

And again, it would be useful if you would actually cite the sources that you are cutting and pasting from.

Again its not about Islam religion,it was incorporated to control women and when they are being told from birth,or by the husband they are married off to via arranged marriage.It is nothing more than abuse.
There is evidence that this type of dress was worn by some Arab and Persian women long before Islam. For example, the Roman African Christian Tertullian, writing in Chapter 17 of The Veiling of Virgins around 200 AD, praises the modesty of those "pagan women of Arabia" who "not only cover their head, but their whole face...preferring to enjoy half the light with one eye rather than prostituting their whole face."[1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

oscarBravo wrote: »

Unless there's a specific law banning it, I'm sure that falls under GBH or similar. It's also illegal in many (if not most) Muslim countries. I can't build a church spire on my semi-d either. That's human rights law, not "western culture" law. Health and safety, not western culture. No more than they should be allowed to purchase any other dangerous chemicals or unsafe medicines. Education isn't exclusive to western culture. What about them? We're talking about laws enforcing western culture. At least, I thought we were talking about that, but I haven't seen any actual examples.

But thats their right so should be allowed practice it in western countries also.The women want it.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=13&id=76&Itemid=6

So what is male circumcision?

If i was told from birth i am not allowed to show my face or i will go to hell and not a pure woman as i let other men look on me etc... etc...
That is abuse.
I always knew the day would come when rights would come back to haunt the nation and be turned around to suit the abusers.I wonder what will be next.

caseyann

yammycat wrote: »

A few might but the vast majority don't

The few that do want to do it is basically forced into them from birth so nothing else.And are abused in the mind of being a slut if they dont.
And someone said what if an Irish woman wished to do that,i would say she has been brain washed by partner or husband and fears not to be acceptable to him unless she bows to what he wants.
Because Islam does not teach you to cover your face.:rolleyes:

oscarBravo

caseyann wrote: »

But thats their right so should be allowed practice it in western countries also.The women want it.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=13&id=76&Itemid=6

So what is male circumcision?

If i was told from birth i am not allowed to show my face or i will go to hell and not a pure woman as i let other men look on me etc... etc...
That is abuse.
I always knew the day would come when rights would come back to haunt the nation and be turned around to suit the abusers.I wonder what will be next.

As is so often the case, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

caseyann

caseyann wrote: »

The few that do want to do it is basically forced into them from birth so nothing else.And are abused in the mind of being a slut if they dont.
And someone said what if an Irish woman wished to do that,i would say she has been brain washed by partner or husband and fears not to be acceptable to him unless she bows to what he wants.
Because Islam does not teach you to cover your face.:rolleyes:

There are plenty of converts who wear the full burqa with no cultural influence or anything but their own decision.
You really need to stop making this up

caseyann

oscarBravo wrote: »

As is so often the case, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

You argue they should be allowed to enforce control over women with a full veil under the pretense its is about Islam and religion.(as they are brain washed into believing from young age,or forced into by a man they marry.
Well it is their right then to commit Female circumcision as it is apart of their culture and religion.

caseyann

bluewolf wrote: »

There are plenty of converts who wear the full burqa with no cultural influence or anything but their own decision.
You really need to stop making this up

Oh and you know them do you lol
Show me the proof?
You know nothing about true Islam.And any true Muslim will say the same.Full veil is nothing more than a mans control over women.

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

Again its not about Islam religion,it was incorporated to control women and when they are being told from birth,or by the husband they are married off to via arranged marriage.It is nothing more than abuse.
There is evidence that this type of dress was worn by some Arab and Persian women long before Islam. For example, the Roman African Christian Tertullian, writing in Chapter 17 of The Veiling of Virgins around 200 AD, praises the modesty of those "pagan women of Arabia" who "not only cover their head, but their whole face...preferring to enjoy half the light with one eye rather than prostituting their whole face."[1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

caseyann, there are plenty of pagan/tribal practices that are incorporated into modern religious practice. It isn't by accident that so many Catholic feast days "happen" to fall on pagan holidays.

Women who veil today do so because they are MUSLIM, not because they are Arab. Lebanese Maronites are Arabs, but they are not MUSLIMS, so they do not veil. Copts in Egypt are ARABS, but they are Christians so they do not veil. Why do you keep raising the historical issue over and over again?

caseyann wrote: »

But thats their right so should be allowed practice it in western countries also.The women want it.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=13&id=76&Itemid=6

So what is male circumcision?

WTF are you on about here?

caseyann wrote: »

If i was told from birth i am not allowed to show my face or i will go to hell and not a pure woman as i let other men look on me etc... etc...
That is abuse.

Given that Irish people were told weekly that they would go to hell if they engaged in impure thoughts, words, or deeds, I find this rather rich. Should the government ban the Catholic Church?

caseyann wrote: »

I always knew the day would come when rights would come back to haunt the nation and be turned around to suit the abusers.I wonder what will be next.

:rolleyes:

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

Oh and you know them do you lol
Show me the proof?
You know nothing about true Islam.And any true Muslim will say the same.Full veil is nothing more than a mans control over women.

Did you even bother to read the article on this cited earlier in the thread?

And what is a "true" Muslim? Please, enlighten us.

yammycat

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why not focus your energies on preventing people from being forced to wear things they don't want to wear?

You can't legislate against mindset.

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

Given that Irish people were told weekly that they would go to hell if they engaged in impure thoughts, words, or deeds, I find this rather rich. Should the government ban the Catholic Church?



:rolleyes:

Oh wait so telling kids not to steal or drink or have sex before marriage etc... you are attempting to make it the same as if you show your face you are a slut.
So it is for their safety and for their sins to wear the Burqa and you see that as the same thing.
Not one of you have a clue or ever even spoke to a woman under a burqa have you lol
I am done sooner the better this ban goes across all Europe and western society.


Many other equally eloquent, equally educated Muslim religious (and secular) women—as well as ex-Muslims--insist that the Koran does not mandate that women cover their faces—only that men and women both dress “modestly.” Leading Islamic scholars agree with them. History reveals that Muslim women successfully fought against wearing both the face-veil and the headscarf for more than one hundred years in countries such as Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan.

In 1994, the Supreme Court of Malaysia prohibited public servants from covering their faces. Their grounds included the fact that doing so is not required by Islamic law.
n 2009, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the grand Sheikh of al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s highest institution of religious learning, was angered when he toured a high school in Cairo and found a teenage girl wearing a face-veil. He said: “The niqab is a tradition. It has no connection to religion.” He instructed the terrified girl never to wear the niqab again and issued a fatwa (religious edict) against its use in schools.

In 2010, Syria banned full face-veils in certain public places, including universities. In 2010, Iraqi religious authorities issued a fatwa requiring courtroom witnesses to appear unveiled; they said that only the Prophet Muhammad’s wives were obliged to wear face-veils.

And on April 12, 2011, Dr. Taj Hargey, Imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, wrote in the Daily Mail: “The decision by the French government to outlaw all forms of public face-masking, including the burka and niqab, is welcomed by all thinking Muslims around the world.”

http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2011/04/france-is-brave-and-right-to-ban-burqa.html

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

Oh wait so telling kids not to steal or drink or have sex before marriage etc... you are attempting to make it the same as if you show your face you are a slut.

How is this different from telling people if they engage in perfectly normal behavior - sex, masturbation, etc - that they are going to hell? The nuns used to tell girls all kinds of crazy stuff, all with the end goal of preserving their chastity.

Using Islam to browbeat women into veiling isn't much different that using Catholicism to browbeat women into not using birth control. But not all women who veil (or who don't use birth control) do so because they were forced/coerced/nagged into doing it; for many it is simply a personal choice that they make as a religiously observant adult.

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

How is this different from telling people if they engage in perfectly normal behavior - sex, masturbation, etc - that they are going to hell? The nuns used to tell girls all kinds of crazy stuff, all with the end goal of preserving their chastity.

Using Islam to browbeat women into veiling isn't much different that using Catholicism to browbeat women into not using birth control. But not all women who veil (or who don't use birth control) do so because they were forced/coerced/nagged into doing it; for many it is simply a personal choice that they make as a religiously observant adult.

Em do you see irony here,i hope you do or else the whole point is lost on you.Yet you attack one and condone the other lol

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

Many other equally eloquent, equally educated Muslim religious (and secular) women—as well as ex-Muslims--insist that the Koran does not mandate that women cover their faces—only that men and women both dress “modestly.” Leading Islamic scholars agree with them. History reveals that Muslim women successfully fought against wearing both the face-veil and the headscarf for more than one hundred years in countries such as Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan.

In 1994, the Supreme Court of Malaysia prohibited public servants from covering their faces. Their grounds included the fact that doing so is not required by Islamic law.
n 2009, Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the grand Sheikh of al-Azhar University, Sunni Islam’s highest institution of religious learning, was angered when he toured a high school in Cairo and found a teenage girl wearing a face-veil. He said: “The niqab is a tradition. It has no connection to religion.” He instructed the terrified girl never to wear the niqab again and issued a fatwa (religious edict) against its use in schools.

In 2010, Syria banned full face-veils in certain public places, including universities. In 2010, Iraqi religious authorities issued a fatwa requiring courtroom witnesses to appear unveiled; they said that only the Prophet Muhammad’s wives were obliged to wear face-veils.

http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2011/04/france-is-brave-and-right-to-ban-burqa.html

And within Christianity, different sects have different interpretations of religious law and practice. Evangelical Christians have different views on homosexuality than Anglicans. Catholics treat communion quite differently from Baptists. Yet all of these groups come out of the same Bible-based stream of monotheism. Islam is no different.

Tradition or no, some Muslim clerics and sects demand that a woman is fully covered. Others do not. But this is besides the point: whether it stems from the Koran or from tribal tradition, it is a practice done in accordance with specific interpretations of Islam, and although some people may find it distasteful, in a liberal democracy I see no reason why people should not be able to wear what they see fit.

yammycat

southsiderosie wrote: »

and although some people may find it distasteful

The people who truly find it distateful are those forced to wear it upon threat of violence

southsiderosie wrote: »

in a liberal democracy I see no reason why people should not be able to wear what they see fit.

If you are more concerned about not being able to wear one item of clothing out of the millions available and not the real oppression of your fellow citizens then you have no idea what a liberal democracy is about.

Nodin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I don't really think this law is targeting dress specifically merely a first step against the invasive un yielding nature of Islam. France is right to say if you don't want to follow their culture don't live there and muslims will not adopt to new cultures fully until such backward rules are allowed.

Islamic countries have no problem forcing foreigners to obey their dress rules or deal with the consequences, I don't see why Europe should be any different.

So you want Europe to be run like those countries that force foreigners to obey their dress rules. Great.

southsiderosie

yammycat wrote: »

The people who truly find it distateful are those forced to wear it upon threat of violence

So how does banning wearing this in public stop the threat of violence? Anyone who is violent enough to enforce these kind of norms, as you so claim, is not magically going to stop because of this law. If you are concerned about domestic violence, then why not advocate putting more resources into domestic violence programs that can help these women escape abusive relationships?

yammycat wrote: »

If you are more concerned about not being able to wear one item of clothing out of the millions available and not the real oppression of your fellow citizens then you have no idea what a liberal democracy is about.

If these women are oppressed, how does this law change their oppression?

evolving_doors

yammycat wrote: »

The people who truly find it distateful are those forced to wear it upon threat of violence



If you are more concerned about not being able to wear one item of clothing out of the millions available and not the real oppression of your fellow citizens then you have no idea what a liberal democracy is about.

How do you know if someone is under the threat of violence? Because they wear a cloth over their head,, get real buddy,,, i've never heard of prostitutes being arrested because they were forced to wear skimpy clothing "upon the threat of violence"...

it's plain and simple,, burqas=muslim

so Sarkozy wants to appear to hate muslims

therefore ban burqas

Can non muslims walk the streets and wear burqas?

caseyann

Armelodie wrote: »

How do you know if someone is under the threat of violence? Because they wear a cloth over their head,, get real buddy,,, i've never heard of prostitutes being arrested because they were forced to wear skimpy clothing "upon the threat of violence"...

it's plain and simple,, burqas=muslim

so Sarkozy wants to appear to hate muslims

therefore ban burqas

Can non muslims walk the streets and wear burqas?

Burqa does not = Muslims.
Point you the previous post i made.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71995425&postcount=165
Burqas are nothing more than a piece of clothing to force women to adhere to mans rules.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/syed06.htm
"The true Islamic tradition enjoins the veiling of the hair and neck, and modest conduct - that is all"
- Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall
http://www.islamfortoday.com/niqaab.htm
People need to learn a thing or two about Islam as clearly they know nothing.
One must realize and appreciate the fact that the commandment in the Qur'an in Chapter 33, verse 53, with respect to the Hijab, applies only to the "Mothers of the Believers" (the wives of the Holy Prophet, p.b.u.h.) whereas the wording of the Qur'an in Chapter 33 verse 55, applies to all Muslim women in general. No screen or Hijab (Purdah) is mentioned in this verse -- it prescribes only a veil to cover the bosom and modesty in dress. Hence the unlawfulness of the practice of the Indian-style system of Purdah [full face veiling]. Under this system, the Hijab is not only imposed upon all Muslim women, but it is also quite often forced upon them in an obligatory and mandatory fashion. Even the literal reading/translation of this Quranic verse does not support the assertion that the Hijab is recommended for all Muslim women. The Hijab/screen was a special feature of honour for the Prophet's p.b.u.h. wives and it was introduced only about five or six years before his death."
Dr Turabi is by no means the only scholar of world repute arguing against the face veil. The famed Quran translator, Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall, condemned it as non-Islamic in his 1925 lecture The Relation of the Sexes. Commenting on what he described as the "pitiful condition of Muslim womanhood in India" at that time, he began his remarks by stating emphatically:

Muslims who advance conservative views on female affairs...are normally very literal in their understanding of texts; but they tendentiously opt for an understanding that suits their prejudice."

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

Burqa does not = Muslims.
Point you the previous post i made.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71995425&postcount=165
Burqas are nothing more than a piece of clothing to force women to adhere to mans rules.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/syed06.htm
"The true Islamic tradition enjoins the veiling of the hair and neck, and modest conduct - that is all"
- Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall
http://www.islamfortoday.com/niqaab.htm
People need to learn a thing or two about Islam as clearly they know nothing.
One must realize and appreciate the fact that the commandment in the Qur'an in Chapter 33, verse 53, with respect to the Hijab, applies only to the "Mothers of the Believers" (the wives of the Holy Prophet, p.b.u.h.) whereas the wording of the Qur'an in Chapter 33 verse 55, applies to all Muslim women in general. No screen or Hijab (Purdah) is mentioned in this verse -- it prescribes only a veil to cover the bosom and modesty in dress. Hence the unlawfulness of the practice of the Indian-style system of Purdah [full face veiling]. Under this system, the Hijab is not only imposed upon all Muslim women, but it is also quite often forced upon them in an obligatory and mandatory fashion. Even the literal reading/translation of this Quranic verse does not support the assertion that the Hijab is recommended for all Muslim women. The Hijab/screen was a special feature of honour for the Prophet's p.b.u.h. wives and it was introduced only about five or six years before his death."
Dr Turabi is by no means the only scholar of world repute arguing against the face veil. The famed Quran translator, Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall, condemned it as non-Islamic in his 1925 lecture The Relation of the Sexes. Commenting on what he described as the "pitiful condition of Muslim womanhood in India" at that time, he began his remarks by stating emphatically:

Muslims who advance conservative views on female affairs...are normally very literal in their understanding of texts; but they tendentiously opt for an understanding that suits their prejudice."

Can you name any non-Muslims who wear burqas?

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

Can you name any non-Muslims who wear burqas?

Lets see if someone came up to me in hospital wearing that and was looking to treat me i would tell them to get away from me.Or in bank or school or anywhere.I refuse to deal with anyone wearing such garb.
So therefore all western countries have a right to ban it as it is not their way and not their culture and their right to live in the countries that do accept it.
But paint it how ever many ways you wish,it is not Muslim faith.

Not the point its origins came before Islam,so how it can be a religious reason is absolute tripe.And many many dessert dwellers wear them and have no religion.
Therefore not xenophobic not Islamophobic and not racist or bigoted.Or what ever other excuse you come up with to give power to people who control women and little girls for all their lives.

oscarBravo

caseyann wrote: »

You argue they should be allowed to enforce control over women...

I've never argued anything of the kind. Please don't misrepresent my arguments.

yammycat wrote: »

You can't legislate against mindset.

Who's talking about legislation? What legislation was required to dilute the Catholic church's oppression of women in Ireland?

Nodin

caseyann wrote: »

Lets see if someone came up to (.........)all their lives.

That doesn't answer the question you were supposedly replying to.

Do you claim to be the ultimate interpreter of Islamic religous scripture?

caseyann

oscarBravo wrote: »

I've never argued anything of the kind. Please don't misrepresent my arguments.

Who's talking about legislation? What legislation was required to dilute the Catholic church's oppression of women in Ireland?

You are doing exactly that when it is not apart of Muslim religion and you are siding with them to continue to enforce these rules on women.Even if you dont like it that is what you are doing.

It is a whole lot bigger than just the burqa.

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

Lets see if someone came up to me in hospital wearing that and was looking to treat me i would tell them to get away from me.Or in bank or school or anywhere.I refuse to deal with anyone wearing such garb.
So therefore all western countries have a right to ban it as it is not their way and not their culture and their right to live in the countries that do accept it.
But paint it how ever many ways you wish,it is not Muslim faith.

Not the point its origins came before Islam,so how it can be a religious reason is absolute tripe.And many many dessert dwellers wear them and have no religion.
Therefore not xenophobic not Islamophobic and not racist or bigoted.Or what ever other excuse you come up with to give power to people who control women and little girls for all their lives.

I will ask again: are there any other groups besides Muslims who wear burqas?

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

I will ask again: are there any other groups besides Muslims who wear burqas?

Already answered that with yes non religious dessert people wear them for dessert storms etc...
And way to avoid every bit of proof.To satisfy your own pc ideas.Now move alone if you dont want to see the truth and live with your own ideas.

caseyann

Nodin wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question you were supposedly replying to.

Do you claim to be the ultimate interpreter of Islamic religous scripture?

I dont have to my family tell me the truth of Muslim teachings and Imams i know.So now head off the mission of mercy that is in wrong direction.

yammycat

southsiderosie wrote: »

If these women are oppressed, how does this law change their oppression?

They don't have to walk around in a burqa, I'd consider that an improvement in their life. Not all woman would get beaten for not wearing one but a lot would simply be under great pressure to wear one, screaming fights etc, you aren't leaving the house without one you filthy whore. Now that it's illegal it's not an issue.

southsiderosie

caseyann wrote: »

Already answered that with yes non religious dessert people wear them for dessert storms etc...
And way to avoid every bit of proof.To satisfy your own pc ideas.Now move alone if you dont want to see the truth and live with your own ideas.

Reading back through this thread, your posts have a Sarah Palin-esque ability to say a lot and nothing at the same time; it's really quite extraordinary.

Given that Christian people who live in the desert do not wear Burqas (the aforementioned Coptic Christians being one example) and there are not "dessert storms" in Northern Europe, are there any other meteorological or otherwise extraordinary events that we should be aware of that account for the fact that some women - who seem to be exclusively Muslim - are choosing to veil their faces in places like Belgium, France and Britain ?

caseyann

southsiderosie wrote: »

Reading back through this thread, your posts have a Sarah Palin-esque ability to say a lot and nothing at the same time; it's really quite extraordinary.

Given that Christian people who live in the desert do not wear Burqas (the aforementioned Coptic Christians being one example) and there are not "dessert storms" in Northern Europe, are there any other meteorological or otherwise extraordinary events that we should be aware of that account for the fact that some women - who seem to be exclusively Muslim - are choosing to veil their faces in places like Belgium, France and Britain ?

This is a group of women who practice Islam and know through Quran that wearing hijab is actually not a Quranic or a Muslim ritual, rather a traditional practice. Forcing women to wear hijab is against human rights. Its only purpose is to serve male dominance and control and it's roots are non Islamic.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=118617421489188

southsiderosie

yammycat wrote: »

They don't have to walk around in a burqa, I'd consider that an improvement in their life. Not all woman would get beaten for not wearing one but a lot would simply be under great pressure to wear one, screaming fights etc, you aren't leaving the house without one you filthy whore. Now that it's illegal it's not an issue.

It's not an issue that in all likelihood they will be confined to the house?

Instead of passing such a ridiculous law, if the domestic lives of these women is really such a concern, then why not set up women's groups and services targeting them rather than making such sweeping legislation which only sends a message to the (large) Muslim community in France that they will be - once again - demonized for political point-scoring?

Laisurg

yammycat

southsiderosie wrote: »

It's not an issue that in all likelihood they will be confined to the house?

The idea that a law shouldn't be passed because wrongdoing will only happen elsewhere isn't a good argument.

Instead of passing such a ridiculous law, if the domestic lives of these women is really such a concern, then why not set up women's groups and services targeting them rather than making such sweeping legislation which only sends a message to the (large) Muslim community in France that they will be - once again - demonized for political point-scoring?

It isn't ridiculous If you are being forced against your will to walk around in one of those things the law will give an immediate improvement to your quality of life, immediate, if a husband is forcing his wife to walk around in one of these things he is hardly going to allow her pop down the local community center to have a discussion on womans rights with the infidels.

evolving_doors

caseyann wrote: »

Forcing women to wear hijab is against human rights. Its only purpose is to serve male dominance and control and it's roots are non Islamic.

The logic of this banning argument is flawed through and through...

the french government are using a converse argument to 'protect human rights'

>All crows are birds
>Does that mean all birds are crows?

>Some women who are forced to "serve male dominance" happen to wear a burqa.
>Does this mean all women who wear burqas "serve male dominance"
> Therefore if we ban the Burqa the French will stop such women being denied their human rights. (One of which would be to dress as they please oui/non???)

If I want to walk down the street wearing a chicken on my head I should be allowed to.

yammycat

Armelodie wrote: »

If I want to walk down the street wearing a chicken on my head I should be allowed to.

Does the chicken get a say ?

evolving_doors

yammycat wrote: »

It isn't ridiculous If you are being forced against your will to walk around in one of those things the law will give an immediate improvement to your quality of life,

that's all well and good but what if you aren't being forced to wear it and CHOOSE to wear it for whatever reason (fashion/ a fancy dress party).
Do you still deserve to be thrown into the back of a van, brought down to the station and fined after questioning...Freedom of expression my hat

evolving_doors

yammycat wrote: »

Does the chicken get a say ?

The chicken is dead dude

a la Mr bean with the turkey..



Animal rights argument is for a different day

yammycat

Armelodie wrote: »

that's all well and good but what if you aren't being forced to wear it and CHOOSE to wear it for whatever reason (fashion/ a fancy dress party).
Do you still deserve to be thrown into the back of a van, brought down to the station and fined after questioning...Freedom of expression my hat

If you choose to wear it and it is illegal to do so then you should face whatever the penalty is.

evolving_doors

yammycat wrote: »

If you choose to wear it and it is illegal to do so then you should face whatever the penalty is.

Nobody is arguing about breaking the law and facing a penalty

The argument in this thread is about the shortcomings of the law..

i.e. legislating on how people dress in public on the assumption that it will 'save' that person from a beating is ludicrous..

Nodin

caseyann wrote: »

Already answered that with yes non religious dessert people wear them for dessert storms etc...
.

In France?

caseyann wrote: »

I dont have to my family tell me the truth of Muslim teachings and Imams i know
.

So your family are the interpreters as to which sect of Islam is 'correct'. Excellent. Which one is it, might I ask?

The Waltzing Consumer

Armelodie wrote: »

The logic of this banning argument is flawed through and through...

the french government are using a converse argument to 'protect human rights'

>All crows are birds
>Does that mean all birds are crows?

>Some women who are forced to "serve male dominance" happen to wear a burqa.
>Does this mean all women who wear burqas "serve male dominance"
> Therefore if we ban the Burqa the French will stop such women being denied their human rights. (One of which would be to dress as they please oui/non???)

If I want to walk down the street wearing a chicken on my head I should be allowed to.

Your logic is a tad bit wrong. A tad meaning 100% wrong.
You only have one premise, all crows are birds, so where the hell do you get the conclusion all birds are crows? You just grabbed that out of the air.

Your next logic example. SOME women, is your premise, but then your conclusion is ALL women, which is completely false. Again, where did you get the conclusion from? You said SOME in your premise, it turns into ALL in your conclusion. Then you use this one false premise and a false conclusion and create another conclusion about banning the burqa in France will stop women being denied their human rights. Seriously, please tell me you don't study logic in college because that is a fail. Aristotle is spinning in his grave.

I am not going to even ask where the chicken on your head comes from.

yammycat

Armelodie wrote: »

Nobody is arguing about breaking the law and facing a penalty

The argument in this thread is about the shortcomings of the law..

i.e. legislating on how people dress in public on the assumption that it will 'save' that person from a beating is ludicrous..

Not save them from a beating - save them from having to wear the monstrosity.

The Waltzing Consumer

Armelodie wrote: »

Nobody is arguing about breaking the law and facing a penalty

The argument in this thread is about the shortcomings of the law..

i.e. legislating on how people dress in public on the assumption that it will 'save' that person from a beating is ludicrous..

Well let's use logic since you are a fan of that.

-The burqa, like many other religious symbol/habit/tradition, came about because of a practical reason, primarily the weather in arab countries being harsh to the skin and the irrational fear of property being taken by another (property being a woman).

-As society changes, the burqa is no longer confined to the arab countries so weather element is not valid in all cases. There are state laws which protect men and women from property being stolen which did not exist when it was first used and also equal rights which allow men and women to divorce and not be property of each other.

-Therefore, since the conditions that caused the burqa to exist are now not valid, the burqa is no longer necessary.

See, two premises, and a conclusion. Not that hard. I established the reason for the burqa, I challenged these reasons and showed why they are no longer valid, and then I concluded by saying the burqa is no longer necessary when it comes to Europe.

Nodin

yammycat wrote: »

Not save them from a beating - save them from having to wear the monstrosity.

'saving them from the burden of choice'.

Personally I found the fashion for platform shoes fairly abysmal, but I don't think that gave me the right to have them banned or lobby for such.

Nodin

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well let's use logic since you are a fan of that.

-The burqa, like many other religious symbol/habit/tradition, came about because of a practical reason, primarily the weather in arab countries being harsh to the skin and the irrational fear of property being taken by another (property being a woman).

-As society changes, the burqa is no longer confined to the arab countries so weather element is not valid in all cases. There are state laws which protect men and women from property being stolen which did not exist when it was first used and also equal rights which allow men and women to divorce and not be property of each other.

-Therefore, since the conditions that caused the burqa to exist are now not valid, the burqa is no longer necessary.

See, two premises, and a conclusion. Not that hard. I established the reason for the burqa, I challenged these reasons and showed why they are no longer valid, and then I concluded by saying the burqa is no longer necessary when it comes to Europe.

....high heels and short skirts aren't nessecary either. Nor is make up, fancy hair do's, expensive perfume etc. It's hardly grounds for a ban.

yammycat

Nodin wrote: »

'saving them from the burden of choice'.

saving them from not having the choice, people don't choose to wear it, it's forced upon them.

The Waltzing Consumer

Nodin wrote: »

....high heels and short skirts aren't nessecary either. Nor is make up, fancy hair do's, expensive perfume etc. It's hardly grounds for a ban.

Chastity belts are not necessary either but they should be banned. Female genital mutilation is not necessary but it should be banned. Foot binding is not necessary but it should be banned.

There are, unfortunately, certain items, traditions and customs which are very old and still practiced in parts of the world which are barbaric, cause physical and mental pain and are symbols of female submission and inequality. Many of these things are notorious for forcing the female to partake. I have no problem in Europe saying, we don't want these things. We had many horrific traditions in Europe too, and these were brought to an end by groups of people banning these practices and campaigning for progressive change. These changes may have took away the choice for some people but was better for the wider community and I dare say, we have not looked back.